Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Add Settler colonialism under Colonialism under in "Politics"

Specific process of colonialism highly relevant to world history. :3 F4U (they/it) 15:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

• Weak oppose. I would support adding this, but the politics and government section is already oversubscribed. If some removals are made, I will wholeheartedly support adding this. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Dynasties, houses and political families

When I look at some of the biographical entries, it seems to me we'd be better off listing dynasties, houses and political families rather than the minor members of those families. Examples of this include:

• The Ming dynasty and Tang dynasty in China
• The houses of Windsor, Lancaster and York
• The House of Habsburg in, at various times, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, the Netherlands, Austria and Hungary
• The Capetian dynasty and House of Bourbon in France
• De jure, there is no hereditary aristocracy or nobility in the United States. However, may I present the Kennedy family, the Adams family and the Roosevelt family?
  • The Rockefeller family transcends business and politics. The Astor family transcends business, politics and international borders, being of importance in Germany, the United States and Great Britain

And, if you're wondering how this is handled presently. Note the inconsistency:

• Ming Dynasty, for example, is listed as a level 4 topic under history; Tang dynasty is a level 3.
• None of the British houses are listed as vital articles
• The Habsburgs rate a Level 4 topic under history.
• The Capetians rate a Level 4 topic under history but the Bourbons are unlisted.
• The Kennedys, Adamses and Roosevelts are all unlisted, but the Kennedys have been proposed as a biographical (under politicians) topic. The Rockefellers and Astors are listed as a biographical (under business) topic.

Am I alone in believing we need more of these? And should these be handled as historical or biographical? Should we create a separate section or pepper them amongst various sections? Do we need an overarching guideline for this, or can this be solved by individual adds or swaps? pbp 16:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Add The Devil to Pay in the Backlands

Quoting from the lead section, «widely regarded as the greatest work of Brazilian literature and one of the most important novels of Portuguese language literature and South American literature».

Support

1. Support - a novel that is so important in Brazilian and South American literature should be included. I feel the English-language article is a bit lacking on its reception (I'll add some more sources to the article later) so I'll bring some sources here. The English-language sources I found consistently praise it: Bokklubben World Library called it one of the greatest of all time; the Encyclopedia Britannica article says of the author João Guimarães Rosa, "His monumental epic novel, Grande Sertão: Veredas (1956; The Devil to Pay in the Backlands), firmly established his international reputation." and it's been on a few lists of greatest novels of all time (Guardian list 1, Guardian list 2). According to this journal article, the book was and is very widely praised both in the Lusophone world and abroad, being compared to Joyce's Ulysses, and is the reason why Rosa was unanimously elected to the Academia Brasileira de Letras, and is extremely influential in Brazilian literature ("Since its publication in 1956, Grande sertão: Veredas has been praised in an extensive corpus of scholarship for its linguistic and structural innovations, placing it firmly among the masterworks of the Brazilian canon. As John King notes, in the Brazilian tradition “there is a distinct ‘before’ and ‘after’ Rosa” (68), and critics such as Charles A. Perrone have even viewed Rosa as “[t]he undisputed master of modern Brazilian narrative”." Jaguarnik (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.61.30.16 (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Remove interstellar-mass black hole from Astronomy

To my knowledge there is no such object type. It's a nonsensical term. Praemonitus (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Article is a red-link. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support: Red-link, and presumably an iterative name for Stellar black hole, which is listed separately. Can't a page that's been binned due to obvious error/duplication just be speedy removed? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Vote rendered moot by the clear-up below. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Was corrected to Intermediate-mass black hole in this revision.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 10:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that would be acceptable. Praemonitus (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Possible Expansion of VA5

There is a proposal here on expanding VA5 here. 115.188.126.180 (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Add Blender, Coffeemaker, Convection oven, Hair dryer, Hair iron, Hot-water heater, Humidifier, Juicer, Microwave oven, Mixer (appliance), Rice cooker, Slow cooker, Toaster, Water dispenser

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I took a quick glance at the household appliances section of Technology, and was surprised to find out that there were little to no minor appliances used daily, besides the more obvious Oven, Refrigerator, Washing machine, etc. There are many things that I could think of that could also be included, such as Microwave oven, Hot-water heater, Toaster, Coffeemaker, Hair dryer and more. If there is too little space for these types of additions (I see we are just at capacity in the Technology portion), debate around the amount of articles added/removed I support. I see this more as a discussion for future reference for others who may want clarification going forward before they are added without permission. NSNW (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@NSNW: I agree. Please propose removals so that we could swap those in. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Would it be more appropriate to propose the removal of articles from the household appliances section (28 articles I believe), or remove articles spanning the entire technology section. I'm pretty new to this process and would like some input. In the meantime, I'll make a list of things that should be subbed in. NSNW (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@NSNW: Have you made a list yet? 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I'm about to go on vacation tomorrow and have spent most of the week packing, I guess I got off track. Here is a starting list:

• Blender
• Coffeemaker
• Convection oven
• Hair dryer
• Hair iron
• Hot-water heater
• Humidifier
• Juicer
• Microwave oven
• Mixer (appliance)
• Rice cooker
• Slow cooker
• Toaster
• Water dispenser.

More items can be added or removed if there is consensus. NSNW (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as proposer NSNW (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC) (vote added by Festucalex)
2. Support LJFIN2 (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
3. Support' most of these are generally reasonable adds pbp 19:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
4. Support in general. Oppose: "slow cooker", "convection oven", "hair iron". What about other home appliances in other cultures? is there anything we missed here? --Onwa (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Microwave oven and Toaster are already included (check their talk pages), at level 4 and 5 respectively, although at different locations. The locations probably should be made consistent. Also, "Hot-water heater" redirects to "Water heating".--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

add Western Union

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Support

as nom Dawid2009 (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Regrettably will have to oppose this since no reasoning was provided for its inclusion. The Blue Rider 09:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

1. @Dawid2009: you should give a brief explanation on the reasoning of the addittion/removal, otherwise it's hard to support your proposals. The Blue Rider 10:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider: I am sorry for late reply but recently I am semiactive and forget about that dicussion. Generally I think that Wstern Union, IBAN and Paypal (already listed) all are qquel importance as part of ecommerce. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oceanian dependencies politicians: Remove?

None of these gentlemen were leaders of independent states, nor of constituencies larger than 500,000. That would really make them not much different than the governor of a state or a mayor of a large city, and we have few, if any, of those pbp 18:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Remove Carlos Camacho

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Support

1. pbp 18:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per discussion. The Blue Rider 20:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
2. He was the last appointed and first elected Governor of Guam. Also, I agree with The Blue Rider on this one. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Not sure about the vitality of any of these politicians, but the argument given is not particularly enticing. Guam and America Samoa are U.S territories and French Polynesia and New Caledonia are French overseas departments. These regions are all quasi-states so they do possess a good degree of autonomy. Additionally, using population as a criterion for inclusion would exclude many important (former) head of states from micronations that are currently (and rightfully) listed. Removing these entries would create a big void in the representation for these departments and territories, even though they are not independent they still need representation. The Blue Rider 10:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Peter Tali Coleman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Support

1. pbp 18:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per Carlos Camacho's discussion. The Blue Rider 20:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
2. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Gaston Flosse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Support

1. pbp 18:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per Carlos Camacho's discussion. The Blue Rider 20:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Weak Oppose Not as strong as the above ones, but I don't think we should remove him. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Harold Martin (New Caledonian politician)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Support

1. pbp 18:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
3. He does not seem nearly as important as the other three. I would suggest picking a more important New Caledonian politician to replace him on this list. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per Carlos Camacho's discussion. The Blue Rider 20:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Darcy's law

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Quoting from the lead section, «forming the basis of hydrogeology». — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.61.30.16 (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Discuss

• Using the nominator's argument: if Darcy's law's importance is only circumstanced to hydrogeology, we should first add such field to VT5 and not a subpart of it. Taking a quick glance through the article, I see that the law is also used in coffee brewing and petroleum engineering. Please expand the reasoning for the inclusion of this article so people can vote fully informed. The Blue Rider 23:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Republic of Crimea and Autonomous Republic of Crimea

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Republic of Crimea is about the Russian administration, Autonomous Republic of Crimea is about the Ukrainian administration in exile. Both articles are in part very special, in part WP:CFORKs of Crimea, a level-4-article. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No reason was given by the nominator for their removal; they are both very important articles in recent history. The Blue Rider 19:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Support removing Republic of Crimea, oppose removing Autonomous Republic of Crimea

1. Don’t be fooled into thinking that the subjects are of similar scope and status because they have similar names. Crimea is about a permanent geographical region. Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a child article, about a political–administrative entity there established in 1921 and changing status numerous times since – and it has national significance for its Indigenous peoples, the Crimean Tatars, Crimean Karaites, and Krymchaks. Republic of Crimea is a child article of that one, about its occupied status since 2014 during the Russian war against Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 15:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

   The article about the Republic of Crimea refers to a specific and existing subject of Russia. It does not matter whether this is recognized internationally or not.

   ARK was created not in 1921, but on February 12, 1991. This is directly stated in the article. – Arinbard (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

   I don’t see where that is directly stated. It says the oblast that had been part of Soviet Ukraine since 1954 was “granted the status of Autonomous Republic by the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR” on 1991-02-12.  —Michael Z. 02:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Strictly speaking, ARoC is the main article about an administrative division that was established in 1921, and changed status a number of times. The RoC article is about a civil–military administration imposed by a foreign power in 2014. (And strictly speaking, both of their geographical bounds include the city of Sevastopol, but their political and administrative responsibility does not.) The political status of the RoC is the same as that of four other Russian occupation regions, the Donetsk People’s Republic, Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast, Luhansk People’s Republic, and Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast: all are in an active war zone, but the level of foreign control over them varies greatly. So don’t be fooled into thinking that the two articles are of equal status, in terms of their historical scope an permanence. —Michael Z. 15:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Note

Please note that I just removed Republic of Crimea after 25 days of discussion and 3 votes in favour of removal and 1 seemingly opposed. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Only three people voted, you can't close the discussion. I suggest you to revert your edit. The Blue Rider 19:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Yigal Amir under assassination

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Category is currently rather US-centric, so adding another further afield assassination of a head of a different state, Yitzhak Rabin, all over a matter of deeply geopolitical issues (the Oslo Accords) couldn't hurt.

Support

1. Support as nom. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

   Also support adding Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin at the same time. Perhaps should have made it a joint nomination in the first place. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

2. Support Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, support adding Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin instead. 〜 Festucalex • talk 02:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

   Could do too? Why not both? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

   Both would be too much. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose Add Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin instead. Curbon7 (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is going to be my last discussion for now. This franchise started in 1984 and is still going strong, as evidence by the movie that came out a few months ago. I was originally planning on asking whether to add to the franchise of the 1987 series specifically to television, but by the end I became convinced that the franchise is more vital. I also came around that this franchise is probably best suited for the comics section. It started out as one, there are other TMNT comics out there, and to further my argument regarding how vital TMNT is, the original Mirage Studios comics gets frequently brought up when people discuss the history of independent comics. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support This wasn't on the list already? QuicoleJR (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Surprised it wasn't already on the list. Curbon7 (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
6. Support Famous enough it should be V5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
7. Support Very important franchise.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The game sold 3.4 million copies in its first 2 days. The game is one of the bestselling games of all time, and it is considered one of the best games of all time. It has also had a large influence on the gaming community, with the Video Games and Internet Culture WikiProjects both rating it High-importance.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support for V5. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Ugali

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Isn’t this the staple food for a large chuck of Africa? It’s on the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
2. At least in Tanzania it is definitely seen as part of the national identity. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Yes, huge staple for most of East Africa. No brainer. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per above. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
7. Support Staple food for a significant percentage of the world. Curbon7 (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Olof Palme

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Prominent Swedish politician, best known for his non-aligned foreign policy during the Cold War. His assassination had a great impact across Scandinavia.

Support

1. As nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support What do you mean he’s not on here already? Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support He should definitely be on the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Major figure of the Cold War. Curbon7 (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: Add Sisyphus, remove Cassiopeia (mother of Andromeda)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sisyphus is famous world over as a symbol for an aspect of the human condition. The Philosophy and Religion section is slightly overquota, so something preferably should go to compensate. Cassiopeia, judging by the article, stood out to me as not of particular importance. While the constellation is level-4 vital I don't think being its namesake matters particularly much. The summary of the mythological character in the constellation's article suffices in my opinion.

Support

1. Support as nom.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 12:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
2. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
3. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
6. Per LaukkuTheGreit. — The Blue Rider 19:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Too many South Korean cities?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was surprised to see Namyangju in Vital 5. This took me to "South Korea (43 articles)". What is the criteria used for how many cities a country gets? North Korea has just 4 cities, despite being only a big smaller than South Korea. Consiering Japan has 3x pop but just 67 cities, and China and India, both ~30x as big, get ~150, I think South Korean section is overdue for a cut (another metric: Poland, a similar country in Europe, population-wise, gets just 16 cities). Germany and France, each 2x the size and population of South Korea, get exactly the same number (43). I am quite fond of Korea, but I think we have some bloat here. Cutting all the stubs (8+Namyangju that I just reassessed as start) might be a good start (ex. Yangsan - nothing in this minor town seems vital at any level, I fear). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for removing of the 8 South Korean stub cities from the list (which will still leave us with too many, but I think that's a start). Stubs: Bucheon, Gimpo, Gwangju, Gyeonggi, Gunpo, Gyeongsan, Hwaseong, Gyeonggi, Jinju and Yangsan. Plus Namyangju. I'd also seriously consider removing most if not all of the 14 articles currently assessed as start class but we can discuss it in a separate vote perhaps? (C+ cities currently number 10, and one start class is at level 4, and frankly I am not sure why (Gwangju)).

Support

1. Support as nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. This section is too bloated. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Per nom. The Blue Rider 08:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• This is a good proposal but you have to specify which nine cities you actually want to remove. The Blue Rider 09:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  • @The Blue Rider: Added a list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Llanfairpwllgwyngyll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The town is famous for its long extended name, and it is located in Wales, which is currently underrepresented. The town is a popular tourist attraction, and additionally a new bacteria was discovered there. It has also seen several references in popular culture.

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm afraid a bacteria and a funny name isn't enough to be vital. — The Blue Rider 12:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
2. I am sorry, but population of 3k and few minor popculture memes don't make it vital IMHO. And how if Wales underrepresented? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
3. pbp 11:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
4. As someone that learnt how to say the town's full name as a party trick, yeah no, that's really the main thing it's noteworthy for. If we wanted to rectify the lack of representation for Wales, I'd propose Aberystwyth, Bangor, Merthyr Tydfil or Wrexham before anything else. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Kings of Leon/Remove The White Stripes (move The White Stripes)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Add Kings of Leon (discography) 4 Grammys (including the major category Grammy Award for Record of the Year), 5 multiplatinum albums, 2 #1 singles

Remove The White Stripes (discography, awards) 6 Grammys (3 for the niche Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Album), 1 multiplatinum albums, 3 #1 singles (2 in the niche Alternative Airplay chart)

• Kings of Leon are underappreciated because as an American band they had 3 multiplatinum albums in Australia and the UK before having a major hit album in the US. Having done better abroad in smaller markets, I think EN WP is underappreciating them. I think the White Stripes success is a bit niche.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• I should note that it might be the case that The White Stripes are viewed as vital because of their niche. In this case, I would propose removing an earlier generation Rock band. I don't have a good understanding of certification information before the 80s. Many bands that seem to have peaked in the 70s and 80s seem to have less significant histories. Roxy Music discography (peaked in 1982 with no multiplatinum albums except for a compilation and 2 #1 singles), Steppenwolf discography (no platinum albums and 2 1968 #1 singles), T. Rex discography (only 1 certified album, but 6 early 1970s #1 singles), Thin Lizzy discography (1 multiplatinum album and 1 multiplatinum compilation and 2 1970s #1 singles), The Pretenders discography (no multiplatinum albums except for a compilation and 3 late 70s and 1980s #1 singles), New Order discography (peaked in the late 80s and early 90s with no platinum albums except for compilation, but 18 #1 — mostly indie and dance charts — singles), Frank Zappa discography (no platinum albums and only 1 #1 single). All of these seem less vital to me than Kings of Leon. Also not sure what to make of Nico and Demis Roussos discography. Surely, there are less vital groups we could replace, but I don't want to make cross-generational comparisons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 23:35, October 24, 2023 UTC (UTC)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • P.S. I think these are assessed as more vital than certifications and record sales might indicate because they are ongoing classic rock airplay features, but I don't know why any of these are any more vital than say The Doobie Brothers discography.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The strongest possible oppose. The comparison is not convincing; the White Stripes achievements are being cherry-picked and downplayed as "niche". The White Stripes have an article for their awards and nominations (contrary to the Kings of Leon), let's exame it. They won 6 Grammy Awards (more than Kings of Leon), the categories' supposed, subjective, "hierarchy" is irrelevant, a Grammy is a Grammy and it is not niche at all. They also got 5 MTV Video Music Awards and too many nominations to count (Kings of Leon only got the lesser known MTV Europe Music Awards, which The White Stripes also pocketed in any case). There are a couple of other less prominent, but still notable, awards they won or were nominated to like the Billboard Music Awards or the British Phonographic Industry's awards. It could also be argued that Kings of Leon's multiplatinum albums in Australia and the UK are niche compared to the US one, 70,000, 300,000 and 1,000,000 album sales respectively. Either way, the number of (multi)platinum are mostly a matter of marketing not vitality, there are artists with even Diamonds (albums or singles sold more than 10,000,000 times), like Florida Georgia Line and Halsey (singer), that don't even come close to VT5. Sure, this could also be said about Grammys and other awards; which just comes to show how the number of accolades and album sales are not the best measure of vitality. What mostly matters is if they had a lasting effect throughout society. The White Stripes surely had, they were very innovative both musically and aesthetically, they are credited with the new rock revolution, popularizing indie rock and influencing numerous contemporary bands such as The Black Keys and the Arctic Monkeys. Yes, I am a fan of The White Stripes if that wasn't clear. — The Blue Rider 00:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Kings of Leon are underappreciated. Let's keep it that way. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose per The Blue Rider's thorough write-up. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Wow! Did I just choose the wrong remove or is this band really not that worthy?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
2. @The Blue Rider, Hawkeye7, and Grnrchst: while The White Stripes are up for discussion, they are currently listed in General Rock which is oversubscribed by 11% (111/100 articles), but should they be in the alternative music (26/25 articles) subcategory of Rock. Half of their 6 grammys are in Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Album and 2 of their 3 #1 singles are in Alternative Airplay. I suspect if they had been properly listed, I would not have kicked this hornets nest. Please also feel free to comment on whether this was truly a spurious nomination or if I had chosen a remove from that list of classic rock bands above you would have jumped in to oppose.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

   I agree, they are alternative rock. I don't know about the other classic rock bands listed other than New Order but if you were to present a compelling argument why Kings of Leon are more vital, I wouldn't oppose. — The Blue Rider 19:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

   User:The Blue Rider, Can I withdraw this nomination and pit them against a classic rock band. As I understand it you can withdraw as long as no one other than the nominator has supported.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

   Yes, you can withdraw when there is no one else that wants to change the status-quo, which is the case here. — The Blue Rider 09:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move Eugenics from "Genetics" to "Discrimination"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Better fits under that category. :3 F4U (they/it) 15:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose. This seems to fit better under genetics. The first sentence of the article states that it "is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population." Rreagan007 (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Genetic discrimination would fall into the 'Discrimination' category since it's sole objective is to treat others differently due to gene mutations or genotype. On the other hand, eugenics is a way of human enhancement, with its main purpose to improve human genetics; this is often achievable through discrimination, but there are cases such as human genetic enhancement and prenatal testing that are not. The Blue Rider 09:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

• I'm on the fence about this one right now, because it could quite easily fit into either. I would be interested to see what other people here think about this. Just for reference, when searched for on Google Scholar: there are 76,300 results for "eugenics" and "genetics";[1] and 56,100 results for "eugenics" and "discrimination".[2] --Grnrchst (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Drastic changes to specific TV programs (Removals)

So, I have been going through the Level 5 pages trying to get the qualifiers visible (the parenthesis after the title that specifies what the article is about; I don't know what the specific wikiterm is). Anyway, I just finished working on the Culture page, and... look, I know you guys just had a discussion on removing some TV programs, but I still see some shows that can be removed. However, despite being over quota by 118 articles, I still think we missing some programs? Now, I did initially do some bold removals (and a bold addition), but I undid them after I realized I want to do something big. I'm thinking about removing twenty shows, adding ten new ones, and swapping five show for something else,. More or less. To make it easier for everyone, I'm splitting this topic into three. By the way, all my removal suggestions are going to be American shows, because that's where the glut is. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Remove Unsolved Mysteries (Possible swap with America's Most Wanted)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

OK, so I know there is a very dedicated fanbase for this show (as evidence by how many times this show got revived), but in terms of shows bringing cold cases to the public, I think America's Most Wanted is more vital of this type of program, especially since AMW doesn't spend half of its time discussing paranormal incidents. Now, this is just a removal request, but I also think there's a case for switching Unsolved Mysteries for America's Most Wanted based on my points. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support removal as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support swap Rreagan007 (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support removal per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support swap per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support removal per nominator. The Blue Rider 15:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove American Dad!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As someone who think of himself as an American Dad! fan, I don't think this show is vital. Yes, it's been on the air since 2005, but it is not the longest running animated show, and I highly doubt that it will ever get to that point. It also has never been a ratings juggernaut, and I'm pretty sure critics have long stopped watching this show. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Does not seem vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove The Phil Donahue Show

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is one of the shows I initially deleted, and despite its 5,515 episodes, and six Emmys for Outstanding Daytime Talk Series, I'm just not getting anything from this article that this show is vital. I see evidence that Phil Donahue himself is vital, but that's it. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support This is a hard no. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Your Show of Shows

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So, this show is acclaimed, but I don't think it's to the point where that alone is enough to make it vital. Admittedly, I am saying this as someone who has never heard of this show before.--Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove The $64,000 Question (And possibly add 1950s quiz show scandals in History)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I recently wrote an edit summary that we should drop The $64,000 Question and instead add the 1950s quiz show scandals to History instead. Now, I was operating under the assumption that The $64,000 Question was directly involved in the scandals; it's turn out that the show simply lost popularity because of it. That said, I still think the scandals are more important than any quiz show from that period. (As swapping The $64,000 Question for "1950s quiz show scandals" would involve two completely separate pages, I'm largely just advocating for removing The $64,000 Question.) --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support removal as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support removal per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support removal. Weird, I thought it was part of the scandal too. Lorax (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Wagon Train

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So this show was a rating success, and it ran for an impressive eight seasons, but I feel like this show is here only because of how it inspired Star Trek. Now, that might be enough for some people, but if the original series or The Next Generation is not vital, then I don't know how this can. (No, I'm not gonna write a special rule for anyone who want to bring TOS or TNG back. It was decided by a vote just few month ago that those two shows should be removed.) --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Inspiring something vital does not always make you vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support. The western genre is adequately covered by other listed shows. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove The Jetsons

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I know that this show is loved by people, and it's kind of nice to have this show along with The Flintstones, but it is not remotely historically important as that show. In fact, of the five Hanna-Barbara shows on here (six if you want to include Tom and Jerry), this is the shortest-run show of them all. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support The show was successful, but not successful enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. It still remains highly influencial for the science fiction genre. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

   @Piotrus: Can you please explain how? I could not find anything in the article besides one person's opinion. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove The Munsters

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Again, same thing about this show being loved, but I'm not sure it's a big pop cultural phenomenon to warrant being on here. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Seems like it was very popular, but I do not see it having VA levels of importance. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nominator. The Blue Rider 15:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Marcus Welby, M.D.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Another show I initially removed. I'll just be straight to the point, this show appears to be straight-up forgotten, as evidenced by the fact that only the first two seasons got released on DVD. It's does have some Emmys attached to it, and it's apparently ABC first show to be #1 in the Neilsen ratings. Oh, and it's appears to be the first show to be successfully called out for promoting homophobia. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support This article does not indicate VA levels of importance. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove The Odd Couple (1970 TV series)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'll be frank, I don't really have an argument for why I want this show removed. I just don't feel like it's vital. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose even though we have The Odd Couple (play), I think this is a vital show.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Family Ties

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yes, this show made Michael J. Fox into a household name. Yes, this show won five Emmys. Yes, both WikiProjects Television and Comedy consider this show to be Top and High importance respectively. But... I don't know, it feels like this show isn't look back on fondly? --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose All of those things sound like reasons to consider it vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove The Joy of Painting (Possible swap with The French Chef)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ok. I know that the internet loves Bob Ross. He does have a very relaxing voice that is almost perfect for an ASMR video. However, of the numerous PBS instructional shows, I feel like a lot more people got into cooking with Julia Child's The French Chef than they did with The Joy of Painting. (Yes, this is partly a swap request.) --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support removal as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support removal. Bob Ross and Julia Child are already listed, so The French Chef and The Joy of Painting are unnecessary. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support removal, no swap Both Ross and Child are already listed as vital, so that is covered. Curbon7 (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support addition At least Julia Child is far too influential to not have more representation at this level. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support removal per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove The Transformers (TV series)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

My main logic for this removal is that The Transformers are seen first and foremost as toys. (Note that the franchise is already listed under toys.) However, I am not a fan of the idea that only one thing relating to something can be vital, and since the show is responsible for worldbuilding the toy's lore, I understand how one can argue that the show is just as vital as the article on the franchise. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. This show spawned an entire media franchise and has entered the popular culture to a point that I think it should be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose Significant television program in terms of popular culture. Curbon7 (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose Transformer has quite global influence in fame for current generatin, if this was purely known for toys and games then actors who play in TV would be less famous. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Thirtysomething

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't like building my argument on "I have never of this show, and nothing in this article screams this show is important", but I have never heard of this show, and nothing in this article screams this show is important. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support not vital Lorax (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Tiny Toon Adventures

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So the previous discussion largely focused on kid shows. Now as much as I hate seeing my favorite shows like Ed, Edd, n Eddy be remove from the list, at the end of the day no matter how much I grew up on them, there are some shows that are just not important. Tiny Toon Adventures is one of them. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support I was the one who reccomended the removal of several kid shows. I should have thought of this programme. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nominator. The Blue Rider 15:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Hey Arnold! (Possible swap with Invader Zim)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here's another a show that I grew up on that I admit is not really vital. I got to be honest though I'm kind of surprise that this show manage to get added and not Invader Zim, which is much more acclaimed. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support removal as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support removal --Thi (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support removal Does not stand out from the batch of 90s-00s era cartoons. Curbon7 (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Prison Break

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is just a show that got consistently good (but not amazing) ratings, and good reviews (at least initially; by the end everyone was hating it). --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support removal Lorax (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Archer (2009 TV series)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is show is very well liked, but I don't think it's to the point where it makes the show vital. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support This show does not appear to be vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Lorax (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Homeland (TV series)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Again, very well liked show, but not to the point where it makes the show vital. (It does come with accusations of promoting Islamophobia, so it got that going for it I guess.) --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Lorax (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Brooklyn Nine-Nine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

All right, so this show is way more acclaimed than the previous two, but still, I don't think to the point where it makes the show vital. (I don't think the asinine debate on whether this show qualifies as copaganda is enough either.) --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.